Nonobstructive Coronary Artery Disease and Risk of Myocardial Infarction | Acute Coronary Syndromes | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Patel  MR, Peterson  ED, Dai  D,  et al.  Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography.  N Engl J Med. 2010;362(10):886-895.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Bugiardini  R, Bairey Merz  CN.  Angina with “normal” coronary arteries: a changing philosophy.  JAMA. 2005;293(4):477-484.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Patel  MR, Chen  AY, Peterson  ED,  et al.  Prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and insignificant coronary artery disease: results from the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE) initiative.  Am Heart J. 2006;152(4):641-647.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Roe  MT, Harrington  RA, Prosper  DM,  et al.  Clinical and therapeutic profile of patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes who do not have significant coronary artery disease: the Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy (PURSUIT) Trial Investigators.  Circulation. 2000;102(10):1101-1106.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Hung  M-J, Cherng  W-J.  Comparison of white blood cell counts in acute myocardial infarction patients with significant versus insignificant coronary artery disease.  Am J Cardiol. 2003;91(11):1339-1342.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Wang  C-H, Kuo  L-T, Hung  M-J, Cherng  W-J.  Coronary vasospasm as a possible cause of elevated cardiac troponin I in patients with acute coronary syndrome and insignificant coronary artery disease.  Am Heart J. 2002;144(2):275-281.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Libby  P, Theroux  P.  Pathophysiology of coronary artery disease.  Circulation. 2005;111(25):3481-3488.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Little  WC, Constantinescu  M, Applegate  RJ,  et al.  Can coronary angiography predict the site of a subsequent myocardial infarction in patients with mild-to-moderate coronary artery disease?  Circulation. 1988;78(5 pt 1):1157-1166.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Falk  E, Shah  PK, Fuster  V.  Coronary plaque disruption.  Circulation. 1995;92(3):657-671.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Ambrose  JA, Tannenbaum  MA, Alexopoulos  D,  et al.  Angiographic progression of coronary artery disease and the development of myocardial infarction.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988;12(1):56-62.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Giroud  D, Li  JM, Urban  P, Meier  B, Rutishauer  W.  Relation of the site of acute myocardial infarction to the most severe coronary arterial stenosis at prior angiography.  Am J Cardiol. 1992;69(8):729-732.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Fuster  V.  Lewis A. Conner Memorial Lecture: Mechanisms leading to myocardial infarction: insights from studies of vascular biology.  Circulation. 1994;90(4):2126-2146.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Shah  PK.  Molecular mechanisms of plaque instability.  Curr Opin Lipidol. 2007;18(5):492-499.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Mancini  GBJ, Hartigan  PM, Shaw  LJ,  et al.  Predicting outcome in the COURAGE trial (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation): coronary anatomy versus ischemia.  JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(2):195-201.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Brindis  RG, Fitzgerald  S, Anderson  HV, Shaw  RE, Weintraub  WS, Williams  JF.  The American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR): building a national clinical data repository.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37(8):2240-2245.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Box  TL, McDonell  M, Helfrich  CD, Jesse  RL, Fihn  SD, Rumsfeld  JS.  Strategies from a nationwide health information technology implementation: the VA CART story.  J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(suppl 1):72-76. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Byrd  JB, Vigen  R, Plomondon  ME,  et al.  Data quality of an electronic health record tool to support VA cardiac catheterization laboratory quality improvement: the VA Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking System for Cath Labs (CART) program.  Am Heart J. 2013;165(3):434-440.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Wilson  RF, Marcus  ML, White  CW.  Prediction of the physiologic significance of coronary arterial lesions by quantitative lesion geometry in patients with limited coronary artery disease.  Circulation. 1987;75(4):723-732.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Levine  GN, Bates  ER, Blankenship  JC,  et al.  2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(24):e44-e122.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Bradley  SM, Maddox  TM, Stanislawski  MA,  et al.  Normal coronary rates for elective angiography in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System: insights from the VA CART program (Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking).  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(5):417-426.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Lin  DY, Wei  LJ.  The robust inference for the Cox proportional hazards model.  J Am Stat Assoc. 1989;84(408):1074-1078. doi:10.1080/01621459.1989.10478874.Google ScholarCrossref
22.
Assessing race and ethnicity. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System. http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/for_researchers/cyber_seminars/archives/763-notes.pdf. Accessed October 14, 2014.
23.
Raff  GL, Abidov  A, Achenbach  S,  et al; Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.  SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary computed tomographic angiography.  J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2009;3(2):122-136.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Otaki  Y, Arsanjani  R, Gransar  H,  et al.  What have we learned from CONFIRM? prognostic implications from a prospective multicenter international observational cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing coronary computed tomographic angiography.  J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19(4):787-795.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Lin  FY, Shaw  LJ, Dunning  AM,  et al.  Mortality risk in symptomatic patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease: a prospective 2-center study of 2,583 patients undergoing 64-detector row coronary computed tomographic angiography.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(5):510-519.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Jespersen  L, Hvelplund  A, Abildstrøm  SZ,  et al.  Stable angina pectoris with no obstructive coronary artery disease is associated with increased risks of major adverse cardiovascular events.  Eur Heart J. 2012;33(6):734-744.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Fihn  SD, Gardin  JM, Abrams  J,  et al.  2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(24):e44-e164.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Montalescot  G, Sechtem  U, Achenbach  S,  et al; Task Force Members; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines; Document Reviewers.  2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology.  Eur Heart J. 2013;34(38):2949-3003.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Steg  PG, Greenlaw  N, Tendera  M,  et al; Prospective Observational Longitudinal Registry of Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease (CLARIFY) Investigators.  Prevalence of anginal symptoms and myocardial ischemia and their effect on clinical outcomes in outpatients with stable coronary artery disease: data from the international observational CLARIFY Registry.  JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(10):1651-1659.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Tian  J, Dauerman  H, Toma  C,  et al.  Prevalence and characteristics of TCFA and degree of coronary artery stenosis: an OCT, IVUS, and angiographic study.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(7):672-680.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Bugiardini  R, Manfrini  O, De Ferrari  GM.  Unanswered questions for management of acute coronary syndrome: risk stratification of patients with minimal disease or normal findings on coronary angiography.  Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(13):1391-1395.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Newby  LK, LaPointe  NM, Chen  AY,  et al.  Long-term adherence to evidence-based secondary prevention therapies in coronary artery disease.  Circulation. 2006;113(2):203-212.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Segev  A, Beigel  R, Goitein  O,  et al.  Non-obstructive coronary artery disease upon multi-detector computed tomography in patients presenting with acute chest pain: results of an intermediate term follow-up.  Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;13(2):169-173.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Min  JK, Dunning  A, Lin  FY,  et al; CONFIRM Investigators.  Age- and sex-related differences in all-cause mortality risk based on coronary computed tomography angiography findings: results from the International Multicenter CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter Registry) of 23,854 patients without known coronary artery disease.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(8):849-860.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Ahmadi  N, Nabavi  V, Hajsadeghi  F,  et al.  Mortality incidence of patients with non-obstructive coronary artery disease diagnosed by computed tomography angiography.  Am J Cardiol. 2011;107(1):10-16.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
De Ferrari  GM, Fox  KA, White  JA,  et al.  Outcomes among non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes patients with no angiographically obstructive coronary artery disease: observations from 37,101 patients.  Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2014;3(1):37-45.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Maddox  TM, Ho  PM, Roe  M, Dai  D, Tsai  TT, Rumsfeld  JS.  Utilization of secondary prevention therapies in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease identified during cardiac catheterization: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Cath-PCI Registry.  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3(6):632-641.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Bigi  R, Cortigiani  L, Colombo  P, Desideri  A, Bax  JJ, Parodi  O.  Prognostic and clinical correlates of angiographically diffuse non-obstructive coronary lesions.  Heart. 2003;89(9):1009-1013.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Sullivan  DR, Marwick  TH, Freedman  SB.  A new method of scoring coronary angiograms to reflect extent of coronary atherosclerosis and improve correlation with major risk factors.  Am Heart J. 1990;119(6):1262-1267.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Dwyer  JP, Redfern  J, Freedman  SB.  Low utilisation of cardiovascular risk reducing therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes and non-obstructive coronary artery disease.  Int J Cardiol. 2008;129(3):394-398.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
November 5, 2014

Nonobstructive Coronary Artery Disease and Risk of Myocardial Infarction

Author Affiliations
  • 1VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver
  • 2University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
  • 3Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora
  • 4Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver
  • 5Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
  • 6Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver
  • 7Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 8Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 9Office of Analytics and Business Intelligence, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC
JAMA. 2014;312(17):1754-1763. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.14681
Abstract

Importance  Little is known about cardiac adverse events among patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD).

Objective  To compare myocardial infarction (MI) and mortality rates between patients with nonobstructive CAD, obstructive CAD, and no apparent CAD in a national cohort.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Retrospective cohort study of all US veterans undergoing elective coronary angiography for CAD between October 2007 and September 2012 in the Veterans Affairs health care system. Patients with prior CAD events were excluded.

Exposures  Angiographic CAD extent, defined by degree (no apparent CAD: no stenosis >20%; nonobstructive CAD: ≥1 stenosis ≥20% but no stenosis ≥70%; obstructive CAD: any stenosis ≥70% or left main [LM] stenosis ≥50%) and distribution (1, 2, or 3 vessel).

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome was 1-year hospitalization for nonfatal MI after the index angiography. Secondary outcomes included 1-year all-cause mortality and combined 1-year MI and mortality.

Results  Among 37 674 patients, 8384 patients (22.3%) had nonobstructive CAD and 20 899 patients (55.4%) had obstructive CAD. Within 1 year, 845 patients died and 385 were rehospitalized for MI. Among patients with no apparent CAD, the 1-year MI rate was 0.11% (n = 8, 95% CI, 0.10%-0.20%) and increased progressively by 1-vessel nonobstructive CAD, 0.24% (n = 10, 95% CI, 0.10%-0.40%); 2-vessel nonobstructive CAD, 0.56% (n = 13, 95% CI, 0.30%-1.00%); 3-vessel nonobstructive CAD, 0.59% (n = 6, 95% CI, 0.30%-1.30%); 1-vessel obstructive CAD, 1.18% (n = 101, 95% CI, 1.00%-1.40%); 2-vessel obstructive CAD, 2.18% (n = 110, 95% CI, 1.80%-2.60%); and 3-vessel or LM obstructive CAD, 2.47% (n = 137, 95% CI, 2.10%-2.90%). After adjustment, 1-year MI rates increased with increasing CAD extent. Relative to patients with no apparent CAD, patients with 1-vessel nonobstructive CAD had a hazard ratio (HR) for 1-year MI of 2.0 (95% CI, 0.8-5.1); 2-vessel nonobstructive HR, 4.6 (95% CI, 2.0-10.5); 3-vessel nonobstructive HR, 4.5 (95% CI, 1.6-12.5); 1-vessel obstructive HR, 9.0 (95% CI, 4.2-19.0); 2-vessel obstructive HR, 16.5 (95% CI, 8.1-33.7); and 3-vessel or LM obstructive HR, 19.5 (95% CI, 9.9-38.2). One-year mortality rates were associated with increasing CAD extent, ranging from 1.38% among patients without apparent CAD to 4.30% with 3-vessel or LM obstructive CAD. After risk adjustment, there was no significant association between 1- or 2-vessel nonobstructive CAD and mortality, but there were significant associations with mortality for 3-vessel nonobstructive CAD (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), 1-vessel obstructive CAD (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6), 2-vessel obstructive CAD (HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.1-3.7), and 3-vessel or LM obstructive CAD (HR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.6-4.4). Similar associations were noted with the combined outcome.

Conclusions and Relevance  In this cohort of patients undergoing elective coronary angiography, nonobstructive CAD, compared with no apparent CAD, was associated with a significantly greater 1-year risk of MI and all-cause mortality. These findings suggest clinical importance of nonobstructive CAD and warrant further investigation of interventions to improve outcomes among these patients.

×